In the past few weeks there has been some considerable pushback, on the issue of a local minimum wage ordinance, from the business community and the Davis Enterprise.
The Enterprise this weekend in an editorial argues that “Davis businesses should not be saddled with a $15 minimum wage,” and that “good intentions don’t fund the payroll.”
The Enterprise notes, “If it lands on the June ballot, and gets approved by Davis voters, the measure would set the minimum wage at $11 an hour in January 2015, $13 in July 2015 and $15 at the start of 2016. At that point, the minimum wage would be 50 percent higher than the state rate of $10, with further increases linked to inflation.”
In fact, it is too late to land on the June ballot; the soonest it would qualify for the ballot would be November 2014.
The editorial continues, noting, “The Davis Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position, but its members are concerned. In particular, they worry about the lack of debate so far…”
A similar argument is made in the letter to the editor from Kari Fri, who describes herself as the managing partner of the Centaur Group. The Centaur Group is a consulting firm that she co-owns with Kemble Pope, supposedly a silent partner, as he is executive director of the Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Fry in her letter claims to be in favor of minimum wage “increases that are already scheduled by the state of California and proposed by the president of the United States.” But she writes, “I do not support a localized minimum wage that inevitably will put our community at an economic disadvantage.”
She writes, “I do not support the $15-per-hour minimum wage initiative petition that is being circulated and my company has not and will not provide any services to the organizers of that initiative.”
She adds, “I have spoken with several of my fellow small business owners (some of whom are my clients) and they are, without exception, fearful that they will have to close their doors, lay off employees and/or drastically increase prices if the minimum wage is almost doubled in the course of one year.”
In addition, she argues, “The issue of livable wages is macro-economic in scale, but this proposed initiative does not recognize the unintended consequences on our small community.” She further argues, “This topic has lacked the necessary community dialogue and thorough research that is a hallmark of the Davis political process.”
While Kari Fry lays out realistic concerns, arguing, “Labor costs are generally 20 to 40 percent of a company’s total revenue. How would your family fare if your expenses were to increase 30 percent next year? If passed, this initiative would have a devastating effect on our local economy with lost jobs, closed businesses, decreased sales tax revenue to the city and higher prices for goods, food and services.”
She goes further, however, not just attacking the proposal, but attacking the proposer, “It is irresponsible to not engage with our local employers and citizens before circulating such a radical proposal. It feels like political banditry and I cannot support any activist who can’t take the time to engage with their community on such a complex issue.”
Here she makes an argument to the Chamber’s and similar to the Enterprise’s, which writes, “(The) proponents are expected to bring the matter up at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Word is that they will seek to waive the 30-day signature review period and ask the council to begin a fiscal analysis even before the petitions are in.”
They continue, “Whatever else the council decides, however quickly the city moves on this proposal, the council should hold firm and insist that all the usual procedures be followed. That means all the signatures need to be submitted and verified before a next step is taken. The petitioners put a lot of stock in fairness; that applies to them, too.”
“They’re asking for a huge change, and the economic ripple effects could be seismic. We need a fair and considered deliberation on this issue.”
So Kari Fry is making accusations without much evidence that they are not engaging with local employers and citizens, accusing them of political banditry, while the Enterprise relies on rumor and innuendo to accuse the petitioners of going outside of the process.
Is this a concerted campaign by the Chamber, Enterprise, and Centaur Group to discredit the minimum wage petitioners?
There is an ultimate disconnect in this argument. In the Enterprise, Ms. Fry critiques the minimum wage initiative volunteers and activists for failing to “engage the community.” However, in order for it to qualify for the ballot, these activists will need 15% of the voting public to sign on. That comes to a whopping 7,000 signatures from registered voters.
This means dozens of volunteers in the city, for weeks on end, are talking to not only those who agree to sign, but those who aren’t registered to vote, those who aren’t politically engaged. It also means engaging in dialogue with hundreds of people who are in opposition to the measure in order to find 7,000 in favor of it.
From our view, there could be no more thorough way to engage the community than to speak with practically everyone who walks on a city street about this issue.
So if that is the case, what is it that Kari Fry, the Chamber, and the Enterprise are fearful of? So of what is she really criticizing the organizers?
To make matters even stranger, in the Enterprise editorial, they note that the backers have until May 1 to gather 7,000 signatures, having about 1,000 at last count. If they are that far short, what is this all about? Where is the fear coming from?
The Enterprise is upset based apparently on “word,” which would appear to be a synonym for rumor, that they will “seek to waive the 30-day signature review period and ask the council to begin a fiscal analysis even before the petitions are in.” Why is that so preposterous?
From our perspective the only way that the organizers are going to reach the very high 7,000 signature threshold is for them to continue to engage the community – something that Kari Fry appears to be asking for.
They are doing that. So what is she REALLY asking for?
When you read through the lines, this kind of petition goes around the normal political channels where employers have the ability to pressure political leaders and even employees.
However, once there is a vote on the issue, on any issue, an employer has no chance to peek at a worker’s ballot and fire them for their political act of voting. For an initiative, there is no politician whose career that can be threatened by withholding donations or attacking them through a Chamber PAC. There are no loopholes you can ease into a law, no special exemptions made available to those who hold power and privilege.
This is not a call for community dialogue, rather this is a fear of democracy itself by the powers that be in this community, which appear to be the Enterprise and the Chamber.
Moreover, they do not trust the voters. It is not as though obtaining 7,000 signatures will make this bill law immediately. No, it has to go through an election campaign. Election campaigns, as everyone knows, are large community-based discussions.
Why is there such a fear of democracy? Why do the Enterprise, the Chamber, and Kari Fry want this initiative strangled in the cradle before it can get on the ballot?
This is not a call for community engagement. This is a call by Kari Fry and others to go through the levers of government where they feel they have control, they have influence. She’s demanding that the proponents of this bill forget about the initiative process and instead move it to a venue where they have always had the power.
She desperately wants this in a venue where her friends are the ones pulling the levers and where she knows the Chamber and the business community can pressure the council into voting the right way.
Why the lack of trust in the community here? Is it because the organizers here are not going through the usual channels for change? Remember, in the fall of 2011, there was a mass signature-gathering effort by opponents of the water project.
During that campaign a group of residents, including Kemble Pope, Kari Fry and Stephen Souza, were counter-protesting, sending the message, “Think before you sign! Forcing a vote on the clean water project is a delay which will cost rate payers more money.”
At the bottom it read: “Failing to act now could result in a loss of our water rights.” It continued: “The state water right is conditioned on the active use of the water. Delaying could jeopardize that state right.”
The flier concluded, “Don’t kick the can down the road, our children can’t afford it! No one wants to pay more for water, but delaying the rate increase will only drive our costs higher.”
The irony, of course, is that by pushing for the initiative, the WAC had a chance to review the project for over a year, they narrowed its scope, improved the rate structure, and improved the project and none of the bad consequences turned out to come true – oh, and the voters ultimately approved the project anyway.
We do not need to fear the will of the voters – we need to fear those who would prevent the voters from having a voice.
The Enterprise concludes their article by noting, “Oh, and while we’re at it: We oppose a city-by-city approach to the minimum wage. The state is the appropriate place for this change to occur.”
That is not an unreasonable position. I would love to see the city of Davis take up that discussion. I would love to see the city put their money where their mouth is and push for the state legislature and the federal government to have a discussion about the decline in the real value of minimum wage over the last 50 years.
Increases in the federal minimum wage in both 2007 and 2008 boosted it from $5.15 in 2006 to $7.25 in 2009. That marked its highest level in real terms since 1981. But even after this nearly 41 percent increase, the minimum wage in 2009 was still 7.8 percent less than its value in 1967 and two years later inflation pushed it down to 12.1 percent below the 1967 level.
As we noted above, the minimum wage ordinance right now seems like a political stretch and a tough haul for the proponents to get it on the ballot, let alone passed by the voters. Given that, why the rush to slam the proponents? Why not allow the system to work as it was intended?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am not understanding a couple of points made by Ms. Fry.
“Ms. Fry critiques the minimum wage initiative volunteers and activists for failing to “engage the community.”
I am unclear which portion of the community she does not feel is being engaged. Certainly weekly tabling at the Farmer’s Market and presentations before the City Council could be included as public engagement. Is she saying that private business people have not been contacted on a one by one basis to obtain their input ? Certainly she is aware of the signature gathering ( tabling next to them at Framer’s Market) so she cannot mean that they are trying to “fly under the radar”. She could have walked a couple of steps and made her concerns clear to them just as any other citizen could. She has the same ability as the proponents to make her case against the proposal to city council. So where is the lack of engagement ?
““Oh, and while we’re at it: We oppose a city-by-city approach to the minimum wage. The state is the appropriate place for this change to occur.”
Does this mean that the Enterprise, the Centaur group and local business do not want Davis in a leadership position ? What ever happened to the concept of change occurring on the local level and avoiding “big government” ? So it would appear that certain folks want Davis to be a “leader”, but only if the leadership fits within their ideology ? Would these folks be happier if Sacramento or worse yet the federal government were to
“impose” or “force down our throats” a minimum wage ?
Tia wrote:
> Does this mean that the Enterprise, the Centaur group and local
> business do not want Davis in a leadership position ?
I’m not a fan of Starbucks or McDonalds, but I do know that almost all of them pay at least minimum wage AND all the employment taxes and income taxes due to the government.
Unlike David I won’t slander anyone in Davis, but just point out that a LARGE number of small local business not only ignore official minimum wage laws and pay cash to employees, but routinely “forget” to pay income tax on ALL the cash they receive.
Many on the left that campaign for a higher minimum wage (and to ban chain stores) are not just doing it to “help the working man” but so they can make more money by forcing competitors to play by rules they don’t follow.
P.S. I wonder when the last time a small coffee shop owner said: “make sure to note on your time card that you are working overtime so I can pay you time and a half to help me count this big pile of cash so we can give half of it to the Government so they have the funds to buy another drone and take out a family in Pakistan”.
“Unlike David I won’t slander anyone in Davis”
Who has been “slandered”?
Davis asks:
> Who has been “slandered”?
When you write: “The Centaur Group is a consulting firm that she co-owns with Kemble Pope, supposedly a silent partner”
You are saying that Kemble Pope is a liar and that he has a lie on his company web site.
http://www.thecentaurgroup.com/about
If you have proof that he is lying you should post it, if not you should get rid of the word “supposedly” in your post and just state that he is a “silent partner”…
first of all, you should look up the difference between libel and slander.
second, it’s only libel if you can show that david’s statement is false and misleading and done for the purposes of falsely maligning another individual.
supposedly is a pretty weak accusation. on its face, it is accurate and correct. you are correct it implies more than that, but that in and of itself does not rise to the level of libel.
disclaimer: i have no idea if david does or does not evidence to support your claim that kemble pope is lying
There are records acquired through a public records act request that suggest that Mr. Pope is not a silent partner. Any citizen can make such a request. Moreover, I have spoken to at least four individuals who corroborate that through direct experience.
Thanks for the follow up. I’m happy to hear your comment was based on research (not just a jab at someone you don’t like)…
SoD, David’s follow-up also included a response to the following e-mail request from Kemble, “Care to share those public records [requests or] could you at least share exactly what public records request I should be making? I understand that you need to submit keywords etc.”
David’s response to Kemble 15 minutes later was, “I can however, provide you with the key words that I used to make a records requests: I requested all emails from September 2013 through December 2013 involving Kemble Pope communicating with City Staff or the Davis City Council.
I hope that helps.
David”
Kemble copied me on the request and David copied me on the response.
I call bullshit, David. Enough with the insinuations and conspiracy theories. You’ve done at least 2 public records requests on Kemble, but have never published anything other than vague insinuations/attacks. It’s time to put up or shut up. Reprint the records in their entirety please, so that the readers can form their own opinions instead of having to rely on your warped spin.
-Michael Bisch
Michael, you may want to check with Kemble before you make that demand. Based on what I know, he may not want that to happen.
things could get interesting.
South of Davis: You have just implied that “small coffee shop owners” violate labor laws. You’ve also stated that a “LARGE number of small local business” owners violate labor laws and federal tax laws.
You don’t know any of those things for a fact. You are assuming that your friends and neighbors who own local businesses are acting illegally. You have just made unverifiable accusations of illegal behavior. I don’t know if that is slander, but it sure sounds like it to me.
Did SOD name any business or person by name? To me that makes a huge difference.
Don wrote:
> South of Davis: You have just implied that “small coffee shop
> owners” violate labor laws. You’ve also stated that a “LARGE
> number of small local business” owners violate labor laws and
> federal tax laws.
I had a particular coffee shop (not in Davis) in mind (I’m friends with the owner) when I wrote that. I was involved with commercial lending for over 10 years and saw thousands of financial statements and hundreds of times was personally told by the business owner that the statements they were giving me included cash income and personal expenses. Sure enough for EVERY (like in 100% not one single exception) when I sent in the form 4506 to the IRS the income was lower and the expenses were higher for EVERY small “mom & pop” business while the “evil” (to quote my coffee shop owning friend on the “we need higher taxes” far left) corporate business paid taxes on every penny of income and the statements I got matched the tax returns.
If you are paying all you taxes I thank you, but saying that a “LARGE number of small mom & pop business don’t pay all the taxes due is not slander it is a fact. As Barack Palin pointed out I did not say anyone specific is NOT paying their taxes due.
SOD – That is why most commercial lenders require signed tax returns… and still file form 4506.
I think you have a point. The larger the company the more internal processes and internal controls exist. The tax code is a nebulous pile of junk… a small operator might take advantage of this by taking the most advantageous path each time. However, a larger company will have developed their own accounting practices that nail down their approach to be consistent.
But part of the reason the tax code has that wiggle room is to spur investment. So a small business would be right to exploit the tax code to the maximum benefit. However, a larger company would need to be more careful. If a smaller operator makes a mistake the penalty would tend to be smallish. If a large company makes a mistake… the IRS can come down like a ton of bricks.
Your “P.S.” intrigues… a small coffee shop owner, paying even a 50% marginal tax rate? Much less their actual tax rate after they have deducted labor costs, benefits (if any), SS & MC expenses, rent/property tax, materials, maintenance, etc.?
Am thinking that the 50% gov’t tax thing is unlikely, so must conclude the P.S. is more about the politics of military spending, etc.
hpierce wrote:
> a small coffee shop owner, paying even a 50% marginal tax rate?
At the end of the day before the a typical coffee shop owner can take their “profit” (income – expenses) they have to pay taxes of ~13% in Social Security and Medicare, ~9% to the State of California and ~28% the Federal Government (or ~50% of the total)…
Again, I ask, “marginal tax rate”, or “actual tax rate”? I know my “actual” is significantly lower than my “marginal”. Don’t small businesses get to deduct SS/MC as an expense? State taxes? They must be doing REALLY well to be in a 28% effective/actual Federal tax rate.
Never having been the owner of a business, I just don’t know. Please feel free to enlighten me.
hpierce wrote:
> Don’t small businesses get to deduct SS/MC as an expense?
You get to deduct it as an expense if you pay it to employees, but you pay both the ~7% employee AND ~7% employer (aka the “self employment tax).
> Never having been the owner of a business, I just
> don’t know. Please feel free to enlighten me.
As a small business owner (who has worked with other small business owners for 30+ years) I can tell you that for most (but not all) small business if you were to declare the $1,000 in cash you had in a box as “income” the government would ask for about 50% of it.
P.S. We can’t forget the City of Davis Gross Receipts Tax (that every business pays even if they don’t make a penny in profit all year):
http://administrative-services.cityofdavis.org/fiscal-services/business-licenses/business-license-general-information
Um, that isn’t really a clear description, though I doubt if this will be any clearer:
The $1000 would be part of your Gross Sales.
Then you deduct your Cost of Goods. That provides your Gross Profit.
From your Gross Profit, you deduct your expenses, which does include all the costs of payroll. That leaves your Net Profit.
If you’re a proprietorship or a partnership, your Net Profit is your income, so it is taxable to you.
If you’re a corporation, you’re paying yourself as an employee. What you pay yourself if taxable as income. The Net Profit is the corporation’s income, and it is taxable to the corporation.
It is convoluted for a corporation. Let’s assume a California Corporation that does $500,000 in revenue with $300,000 in deductible expenses (including COGS) and $100,000 in owner salary.
Sole Prop/LLC – you would not pay federal income tax for the LLC. The LLC profits would be added to the individual income of the LLC members and would be taxed as regular income of the members + 15.3% for ‘self-employment tax’. The deductible portion of Self-Employment Tax is: $11,659. After deductions for expenses and self-employment tax, the income being taxed is: $285,041. Here, assuming each member had an equal distribution of profits and filed as a single tax filer, they would be subject to $99,313 each. The LLC would be subject to a California Franchise tax of $3,300. Total taxes under this method would be $102,613. The excess in revenue was recognized as income. Income must be recognized and taxed even if the money stays in the company’s accounts.
S-Corp – you would not pay federal income tax for the S-Corp or LLC. The income would be added to the individual income of the owners and would be taxed as regular income of the owners + 15.3% for ‘self-employment tax’. Here, assuming each owner had an equal distribution of profits and filed as a single tax filer, they would be subject to $99,412 each. The S-Corp or LLC would be subject to a California Franchise tax of $3,000. Total taxes under this method would be $102,412. The excess in revenue was recognized as income. Income must be recognized and taxed even if the money stays in the company’s accounts.
C-Corp – you would pay federal income tax for the C-Corp or LLC being treated as a C-Corp. The company’s federal income tax would be $54,355. The tax on salaries would be $21,461 per founder (same assumptions). The Company is responsible for Medicaid and Payroll taxes of 15.3%, which amount to $15,300. The C-Corp would be subject to a California Franchise tax of $17,680. Total taxes under this method would be $108,795. The excess of $200,000 in revenue was left in the company’s accounts.
So if you look at the above… in all three cases, the net income of $200,000 would be taxed at more than 50%.
Welcome to American… the home of the free.
“So it would appear that certain folks want Davis to be a “leader”, but only if the leadership fits within their ideology ? Would these folks be happier if Sacramento or worse yet the federal government were to
“impose” or “force down our throats” a minimum wage ?”
Hear, hear. Well written, Tia.
David wrote:
> The Centaur Group is a consulting firm that she co-owns with Kemble Pope,
> supposedly a silent partner, as he is executive director of the Chamber of Commerce.
Unless you know for a fact that Kemble Pope is NOT a “silent partner” (or at least want to share some evidence that leads you to think that way) you should take this comment out since it makes you look real bad (in addition to doing what many might call slander) trying to bash the guy that (as one Vanguard poster said) got you “buthurt” when he would not take your texts at all hours…
“Would these folks be happier if Sacramento or worse yet the federal government were to
“impose” or “force down our throats” a minimum wage ?”
They already are.
It’s not a rumor. It comes direct from Bernie Goldsmith on his Facebook page that he intends to do that.
This piece by David Greenwald, who describes himself as the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard, with silent partners unknown, begins with unfounded insinuations and rapidly goes downhill from there. The piece is awful. It does nothing to foster a productive debate on the $15/hour minimum wage, which has been the hallmark of the effort to date.
-Michael Bisch
On reviewing my previous post, I see it’s not clear what I meant by “hallmark”. The proponents have done very little to foster a productive debate. They’ve gone straight to battle stations. David’s piece only aggravates the dynamic.
-Michael Bisch
One thing about the process is that the early stages are not as conducive to a community discussion – they have a very high threshold to reach in a very short period of time. The signature gathering phase, while part of the public outreach is very hurried. As we saw with the water issue, the opponents had a month to gather signatures, then they qualified for the battle. Following that compressed time period, we had a year long discussion and WAC process, followed by the election cycle. That was the time for community discourse.
What I see happening here is Bernie Goldsmith getting attacked for putting forward this idea. All I see is the powers that be – the Enterprise, the Chamber, Kari Fry – coming out with the heavy guns. What did he do that was so heavy-handed? Seek signatures? I did not think either the Enterprise or Kari’s piece addressed those key issues. Instead with her attack on him and his organizers, they turned the issue into him because he wasn’t go through her preferred process.
You’re right, David, the only way to begin a community conversation is to file an initiative. Not. The proponents chose this process. They chose to put themselves under severe time pressure precluding a well reasoned debate. Nobody forced them. And you reporting a fairy tale to the contrary is not helpful. Nor the weird Kemble/Kari/Chamber insinuations, which has long been a hallmark of your “reporting”.
The comparison to the water issue is absurd. The water issue was debated for many years prior to an initiative being filed. The $15/hour issue BEGAN with an initiative. Hello!
-Michael Bisch
explain to me why it’s wrong for bernie to file an initiative?
My comments have been focused on David’s rant this morning, not the initiative. Nowhere did I say it was wrong to file an initiative. I said it makes it challenging to have a well reasoned community debate. And I don’t have a problem with the proponents objectives or them pursuing them through the initiative process. They have every right. Go knock yourselves out Bernie et al.
-Michael Bisch
you stated: “The proponents have done very little to foster a productive debate. They’ve gone straight to battle stations.”
so i’m left to wonder what your point was there.
david’s rant as you call it, seemed to call out an equally vitriolic rant by the enterprise and kari fry that seemed misplaced to the typical reader.
I suggest any of you who want to follow the proponents of this initiative just Facebook-friend Bernie Goldsmith. He is very up-front about what he is doing. Today’s post involved creating “a consumer advocacy group dedicated to rating the workplace practices of local restaurants. Look for more on this in the future!” This in response to local business owners writing letters to the editor about the issue. I don’t think I’m violating any privacy considerations when I post this, since his page is public. But it tells you where the conversation will go: boycotts, internet shaming, and possibly demonstrations. This is the Occupy crowd, the folks that rally outside of Monsanto headquarters on Fifth Street. It will be potentially harmful to any local business to ‘discuss’ it.
but is this now in retaliation to what has come out from the other side?
What makes you think that?
just seems like he’s been slammed a lot by the business community, the chamber, the enterprise, etc., now he’s trying to figure out ways to fight back and at least even the playing field.
Are you sure its the same people you find outside Monsanto? How do you make that connection?
DT
“The proponents have done very little to foster a productive debate.”
What would you have suggested they do to “foster a productive debate” ?
Maybe you could answer that question.
My partners are all very loud, if it hasn’t become clear already.
David wrote:
> My partners are all very loud, if it hasn’t become clear already.
Do you have a link to your list of “very loud” partners?
they seem to post quite frequently on this site.
To the best of my knowledge David has only one partner in the Vanguard … his wife Cecilia.
If we’ve learned anything in California over the last couple of decades, it is that putting citizen initiatives — especially those regarding fiscal, tax, or economic policy — on the ballot is not the way to foster any kind of intelligent “discussion” about the underlying issues. Economic policies enacted city by city have many unintended and undesirable consequences.
The minimum wage discussion is already occurring at the federal level, where a more modest increase is being proposed. Underlying issues about self-sustaining income (SSI) levels vary widely by region, and — more importantly — by demographics within a community. SSI for a single person is much lower than $15/hour; once she has a child, SSI is much higher than $15/hour. The issue is child care and family planning. Making small local retailers pay $15/hour won’t lift anybody out of poverty if they have children.
The problem is that raising the wage appeals to people who want to “help the poor” without actually paying for it themselves. Raise taxes locally to pay for child care services through the city. Then everybody pays.
Don wrote:
> Underlying issues about self-sustaining income (SSI) levels vary widely
> by region, and — more importantly — by demographics within a community
All you need to know about we won’t be getting as much from Social Security as Grandpa did:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/04/Safety%20net%20beneficiary.jpg
This is not a call for community dialogue, rather this is a fear of democracy itself by the powers that be in this community, which appear to be the Enterprise and the Chamber.
Not a fear of democracy, but a fear of tyranny of the seething uninformed majority… typically the same that cannot get out of working in low-paying service jobs thanks to the crappy education system and the crappy economic policies of liberals and Democrats that have controlled both for the last 40 years.
The “studies” done by all the reliable leftist “think tanks” that “show” that rises in minimum wage have not affected unemployment are laughable. They are laughable first from a perspective of common business sense (they have none) and second because they conveniently leave off the direct and steady correlation with the REAL jobless rate… the one that includes the number of discouraged workers. The one that is almost 20% nationwide, and 30% in many of our larger cities.
The rise in a forced minimum wage has resulted in fewer entry-level jobs and more people stuck on public assistance.
Do Democrats like this? I would hope not, but it seems there is political capital to be mined from the situation. It is an inconvenient truth that more people stuck on the public dole means more votes for Democrats.
We also have some stupid Republicans pushing for a state and/or federal minimum wage hike to $15. They are pushing it because they think that this will reduce the number of people on the public dole and hence will allow us to balance our government budgets. And the thinking is that once people actually work and pay taxes, they will magically develop an understanding of conservative principles and more will vote Republican.
It is all stupid.
It is all harmful in the long run.
We have more and more people unable to find work.
We have more and more people stuck working in minimum wage jobs.
What is the solution?
I will tell you what is NOT the solution… increasing the minimum wage. It is a brain-dead, stupid, knee-jerk reaction that is not only a NON-solution, but it increases the very problems it pretends to solve.
Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs. The majority of people making minimum wage are not heads of family… they are generally young people and family members supporting a household with other breadwinners making a good wage. The rate of pay is a function of supply and demand of labor-skills. If wages for a given skill set are below the subsistence level for a worker, then there are too many people at that level of skill for the number of jobs available. If we want wages to rise we should be working on growing the economy and growing the skills of people wanting a job.
And these are the very two things that Democrats in control of government do not do well… and very well might be doing poorly on purpose.
If you are stuck in a minimum wage job, and voting Democrat because they will force employers to raise your hourly wage. You are essentially like a drug user and them your drug dealer… demanding and getting your short-term fix at the expense of your long-term well-being.
Keep in mind that as a hiring manager if I am paying someone $15 per hour instead of $10 or $12 per hour, I will expect $15 per hour in skills and abilities. So, I will favor the more advanced candidate. And those less-developed candidates will have even a more difficult time getting a job.
Question: what groups have greater representation as less-developed?
Answer:
– Young people.
– Minorities.
So, other than being stupid, a minimum wage hike is both ageist and racist.
intend to understand the ‘business’ perspective… so if an employee was hired at entry-level, because they were desperate for a job, and then excelled in their ‘skills and abilities’, where they provided 200% of the value of an average employee (@ $10/hr), would you pay them $20/hr? Or would they have to negotiate for that?
I cannot speak for other managers in the private sector, but I can comment based on best-practices in employee management.
First consider that I hire skilled employees, or I hire people that appear bright and capable so I can develop their skills. And even the skilled employees must constantly develop new skills. My management style is to create a constantly learning and improving organization. That would be applied to any business I manage… even a restaurant.
I cannot succeed without motivated, high-performing employees.
I cannot succeed unless I attract and retain strong talent.
So, to your point. I hired a UCD college student about 16 months ago. He had 2 years of work experience, but not in my industry. But he had a major in the general area of skills need. I interviewed him and was impressed. He started at $12.00 per hour as a part-time intern while he was pursuing his masters. He did so well learning and developing that he is now a full-time employee making $25 per hour and benefits and I am helping pay his tuition costs for his Masters.
The raises that he has received (four) have been based on an assessment of his developed capability to take on new responsibility in comparison to other employees doing the same or similar work and their pay is based on compensation studies that I have done to make sure our compensation is market.
Do all managers proactively adjust and reward based on demonstrated capability development and new responsibilities? I think all should. It is the way to keep your good employees satisfied, motivated and high-producing.
By the way, that employee is about ready for another raise as he has mastered another difficult skill and has take initiative to do the work. I hope he eventually wants my job… that is the kind of employee I want to hire and retain.
A raise should be for merit, based on market. If an employee asks me for a raise, I say “what more are you doing for the company to justify more pay?” But if I see my pay scales slipping lower than the market, I will make adjustments to pay (usually at Y/E).
Also, about 10-25% of employee pay is at-risk performance bonus… based on their individual, team and company performance relative to the goals set out at the end of the year. That includes my $25 per hour guy that is rocketing forward in the organization.
Correction… UCD college graduate (undergrad degree).
“Not a fear of democracy, but a fear of tyranny of the seething uninformed majority…”
i believe you stated what kari fry was thinking, but could not say.
She is more diplomatic and more politically-correct than me… most people are.
“She writes, “I do not support the $15-per-hour minimum wage initiative petition that is being circulated and my company has not and will not provide any services to the organizers of that initiative.””
but is that accurate? i remember bernie thanking kari fry for her health. there is speculation that at least one of her employees worked on the effort and further speculation that she tried to get the contract to run the campaign but there was a falling out turning her vindictively against it.
Did you really mean “…bernie thanking kari for her health…”, or thanking Kari for her help? Am assuming the latter, an understandable ‘typo’, but would be intrigued if you actually meant the former. Just trying to ‘lighten things up’. Best wishes to all on a beautiful Monday morning.
typo, sorry, help not health
bernie writes on his facebook page: “Giving an interview to news 10, and the owner of burgers and brew roars up in his BMW convertible and starts hollering at us about how tight his business margins are. Here he is leaning against his luxury car likely giving an interview about how his workers should be paid poverty wages. You can’t write this stuff.”
a month ago or so, the owner of crepeville/ burgers and brew got a sweet heart deal to take 8 parking spaces out of circulation and have street dining. their consultant… kari fry.
I love outside street dining…………….I guess I have Kari to thank for that.
will you love having eight less spots to park?
The owners of burgers and brew work 12 hour days. They are always at their restaurants. They have happy employees. They provide quality food at reasonable prices. They put their own capital at risk to start and grown their business. They provide jobs and services and tax revenue.
And so they can afford a BMW and you get to use it in your leftist class war garbage rants.
All restaurants run on thin margins. The success of Burgers and Brew is because of volume driven by excellent operations and management.
And talk to their employees… they are all happy and well cared for as far as employees go. They make better tips because of the volume of business and the happy customers.
But that does not matter to you. Better to point out the status symbols in a fit of angry envy.
Once you gain similar experience maybe then you will be qualified to make comments like this. Otherwise your opinions are uniformed and irrelevant except to put you in the political left that uses class warfare to get their way.
” They have happy employees.”
i’ve heard interesting stories from their former employees. i wonder how many you’ve actually talked to.
How convenient that you say you have stories from their former employees. I don’t believe you. These business owners put their capital on the line and took the chance of failing and losing. If it worked out for them then they deserve that BMW or whatever perks they now have. Nobody is forcing anyone to work for them, they all knew what the job and its pay when they hired on. Anyway, waiters don’t work for the base pay, they work for the tips which in most cases can be very lucatrive. Learn up………..I’m getting tired of correcting you.
you don’t have to believe me.
there are a bunch of stories here that gibe with what i was told…
http://daviswiki.org/crepeville
suddenly everyone got quiet.
So, if they stay too long they will likely become disgruntled like a teacher or other government employee.
So you have some unhappy people working in food service that claim their bosses were bad people… my guess is that the people writing these things are the bad people and time will continue to be their worst enemy.
what does that have to with grown men getting drunk, hitting on their employees, and praising adolf hittler?
Grown men getting drunk? See it all the time. Do it myself sometimes.
Hitting on their employees? Assuming the inference is correct and not a lie or not exaggerations from a disgruntled employee, it would be behavior that I would advise against, but outside of the hypersensitive world of the American liberal, people actually can find mutual attraction at the workplace and it can superseded the uptight rules of American liberal social order (I say American, because European liberals are not as uptight about workplace relationships). I have never really got this view from liberals… the same that demand everyone accept any and all forms of human sexuality and sexual expression, but then push workplace sexual harassment considerations to beyond anything rational or reasonable.
Again assuming the Hitler complaint is not a lie or exaggeration… what if was a stated love of Fidel Castro, or Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin? Liberals seems to allow a certain level of tyranny and atrocity as long as it meets their ideological test. Even so, I think the owners are Armenian or maybe Persian… so shouldn’t we have some sensitivity toward their authenticity? Or does having a successful business and owning a BMW erase the liberal consideration for being non-white?
grown men getting drunk at their place of work and acting inappropriately towards their employees?
“Again assuming the Hitler complaint is not a lie or exaggeration… what if was a stated love of Fidel Castro, or Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin? Liberals seems to allow a certain level of tyranny and atrocity as long as it meets their ideological test. Even so, I think the owners are Armenian or maybe Persian… so shouldn’t we have some sensitivity toward their authenticity?”
so it’s okay for them to express anti-semitism because they are from places that are anti-semitic?
“Grown men getting drunk and acting inappropriately.?” Come on DP, you are over-the-top with unfounded inference and irrational indignation.
And you don’t know that their comments were antisemitic. And you failed to address my question. What if the report was that the owner said he loved Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez, or Mao or Stalin?
You seem afflicted with an inability to see beyond symbols… BMW, Hitler, men getting drunk, men hitting on women, etc. I don’t see the world so black and white as that. Don’t people on the left of politics preach a need for nuance in consideration?
Bottom line is that you should not just jump to believe everything you read on the internet. It could all be made up by a disgruntled employee or two, and then look at how much time you and I wasted debating it.
i don’t just believe everything i read on the internet. i actually know some of the people who posted those comments and spoke to them. i spoke to others as well who were able to corroborate it. i find it weird that you are going so far to defend inappropriate behavior that you yourself would never practice.
btw, i wanted to respond to the Hitler versus other tyrants. there was certainly a time that expressing support for stalin or mao would have been probably a worse transgression, but the cold war is over.
i have read interesting discussions as to why stalin’s name is not as reviled as hitler. i think it comes not from the scale of hitler’s crime, but the severe racial ideology which underpinned them.
Mao and Stalin’s crimes, however, were usually the result of either personal paranoia or mismanagement and carelessness. There’s still some argument about the degree of Mao’s input into the crimes committed by his regime; by the time he came to power, his party influence was already waning. On the other hand, there’s no question that his attempts to seize back power and regain the ideological thrust of the party resulted in needless purges of the upper echelons
hitler on the other hand was systematic, and not just murderous but murderous out of idelogical hatred and i think that sets him above and beyond stalin.
DP – there is that nuance I have come to expect!
However, I don’t buy much of that distinction. Murderous tyrants pursuing their view of social utopia are murderous tyrants pursuing their dreams of social utopia. Mao and Stalin killed more people during their reins, yet liberals tend to give them a pass because for liberals the ends justifies the means. Since liberals don’t like Hitlers end game of his social utopia, there is no room for nuanced discussion about him and his actions. I don’t have a problem with that. But I really wish we had some form of McCarthyism back to deal with those that embrace Mao and Stalin as some type of mis-understood heroes. The cold war is not over as long as the collectivist desire exists, and there are people bent on moving us there.
I’m not personally acquainted with anybody who “gives Mao and Stalin a pass” or who considers them “misunderstood heroes.” This is one of your worst strawman arguments, and that’s saying a lot. This is also the second time you’ve waxed nostalgic about McCarthy. The first time, I figured it was just rhetorical excess. Apparently you really believe it.
McCarthy love is 90% rhetorical excess with a bit of nostalgia for the counter to the extremes we see today.
Saul Alinsky was a Stalinist. Liberals love Saul Alinsky.
Oh, well. So much for that straw man.
“Saul Alinsky was a Stalinist. Liberals love Saul Alinsky.”
alinsky was not a stalinist, in fact he steadfastly eschewed rigid ideology, which is the very opposite of stalin.
Alinski was a socialist and a Marxist. He was close enough to a Stalinist.
alinsky had little patience for political leaders. he believed they took the path of least resistance. change he believed would come from the bottom up, not the top down. that’s again the opposite of stalin.
you’re throwing words out capriciously without any real understand of alinsky or his non-ideology.
a marxist has a very strict ideology, believing in historicism, alinsky railed against such preconceived notions of history.
do your own homework, you’re coming across as ignorant of alinsky.
alinsky had little patience for socialists and card-carrying communists involved in labor and civil rights. he repudiated Marxism then. by the 1960s you might be surprised to know alinsky was even harsher in his criticism of the new left. He viewed the radical activists in sds as naive and impractical and denounced the tactics of other radicals like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground as doomed to failure for their violent tactics and unwillingness to compromise. alinsky loathed dogmatism of all varieties. you really know little about alinsky if you link him to marxism.
Sorry good buddy Frankly, but when it comes to being an expert on Saul Alinsky I’ve got to give it to David Progressive. D.P. knows, believe me.
Alinsky is not connected to any political ideology because he said so… right; and he said so because a person can’t be an effective radical if nailed to a certain political group or dogma, right?
I have heard the same arguments that Obama is not a liberal. Not surprising as Obama carries a dog-eared copy of Rules for Radicals everywhere he goes.
But actions always speak louder than words. And the actions of Alinski point directly to an organized labor affinity and an anti-corporation stance… a primary signature of socialists, Marxists, and communists.
Read his writings, and if you can get past all the dripping narcissism, it is clear that the guy opined for a system of collective power… the same ideals that drive a march toward socialism, Marxism and Communism… but then never deliver as promised.
Lots of them, since I frequent their establishments. And because my kids have friends that work for them. And I know a happy workplace when I see it. Are ALL of them happy? Well no, because there is a larger percentage of generally unhappy people working in the food service industry. Food service expects a higher level of employee turn-over than other industries. The average employee is a young person going to school to further his/her career.
For some reason cooks are generally first generation immigrants where English is still a second language. I don’t know why. Are they happy? I don’t know because I don’t speak very good Spanish so I have not had a conversation with any. But go to Crepeville and note the interactions of cooks, cashiers and wait staff. First, they are all efficient and customer-service trained. Second, they banter with each other… including the owners. These BMW owners do a great job with their operation and employees. If the work situation was that bad for employees, the service would suffer. It does not. But food service is hard and it is generally not a job that someone should make into a career unless their goal is to manage or own restaurants… or to be a professional chef or server in a top-shelf establishment. So, if they stay too long they will likely become disgruntled like a teacher or other government employee.
“So, if they stay too long they will likely become disgruntled like a teacher or other government employee.”
LOL, thanks for the laugh Frankly.
Frankly wrote:
> And so they can afford a BMW and you get to use it in your
> leftist class war garbage rants.
I’ve had a bunch of BMWs over the years including one convertible (an ’88 E30 I paid $6K for) that cost from $2K (a 2002 with some rust) to $10K (a clean E34 5 Series).
I always found it funny that people driving Prius’ that they bought for ~$20K new would call me the “rich guy with the BMW”…
P.S. I still think that yelling at anyone giving an interview is a dumb idea and even dumber if you are in a “rich person’s car” even if it was one of these:
http://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/4421568510.html
Yeah, those darkies singing in the fields pickin cotton were happy too!
My understanding is that they’re trying to take existing parallel parking spaces out, add diagonal parking (no net gain/loss) and free up space to expand the sidewalk area for the dining. I may be incorrect.
Another step on the road to ban cars from Downtowm.
Just another day on the Vanguard. 10% substance, 90% innuendo and conspiracy theories. It’s good to know Kemble & Kari have all things Davis under control with their secret plots. I was worried that we were declining into chaos.
PS: The dissertations on small business tax rates are helpful though. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
DT Businessman wrote:
> PS: The dissertations on small business tax rates are helpful though.
It really seems like a lot of people want to kill small business. Years ago when a friend (the son of a big donor) took a semester off college to “work” for a (CA) congressman in DC he was basically told that everyone in Washington wants to get rid of little coffee shops (like the one without a sign down the street from DT Businessman) and the dive Mexican places I like (e.g. El Farolito on Mission @24th in SF) since they (for the most part) don’t give campaign cash and it is much easier to get big chunks of money out of Starbucks and Chipolte that have hundreds of stores. We all know that when you triple water rates (most business have NNN leases) almost double the minimum wage and then if it were not bad enough let’s raise the sales tax it will kill off even more small business. I’ve never liked working for a big company and maybe I’m different, but it does not seem like a dream world to me when most people work for Wal Mart, McDonalds and Starbucks making $15/hour (as the companies work even harder to replace them with automation and self checkouts)…
Perhaps this $15 minimum wage proposal lurches too far to the other side of the divide; seems to me it would hurt employers. How about less lurching and more moderation?
To those sponsoring the petition–myself and I would guess the majority of Davis voters might not approve a wage hile to $15; but I bet a more modest increase ($9 to $10 to $11 by 2016) woulld pass. Moderation!
“…The majority of people making minimum wage are not heads of family… they are generally young people and family members supporting a household with other breadwinners making a good wage. The rate of pay is a function of supply and demand of labor-skills. If wages for a given skill set are below the subsistence level for a worker, then there are too many people at that level of skill for the number of jobs available. If we want wages to rise we should be working on growing the economy and growing the skills of people wanting a job.”
Please check your stats.There are many single parents in CA who work 40 hours per week at minimum wage jobs & must either work a 2nd job (if they can find safe daycare) or get public assistance. When I worked for a nutrition organization, many CA single parents worked at least 40 hrs. per week at or close to min. wage. Minimum wage is not a living wage. I suspect that some business owners who pay cash are trying to avoid their workers comp insurance, which used to be based on $100 of payroll. I wonder how w.c.insurance is presently calculated.
If business owners try to hire less people at less hours when the minimum wage is increased, they’ll have very tired employees, who will be a safety risk, and who will miss more time from work due to illness, because they are too tired. Business owners in Davis may have to accept that their employees need a living wage to work & live in the expensive little village of Davis. Business owners in Davis may not see the profits they are used to, but their employees will be less stressed out , healthier, more productive and happier.
Frankly wrote:
> The majority of people making minimum wage are not heads of family…
> they are generally young people and family members supporting a
> household with other breadwinners making a good wage.
Then D.D. wrote:
> Please check your stats. There are many single parents in CA who work
> 40 hours per week at minimum wage jobs
I don’t think Frankly needs to “check his stats” since he is correct that the “majority” (most) people making minimum wage are not heads of family.
D.D. is also correct that there are “many” (some) single parents in CA who work 40 hours per week at minimum wage jobs.
If we raise the minimum wage in Davis we will have less minimum wage jobs (you will always have less of something when you come close to doubling the price).
Since the “single parents” D.D. seems to care about miss more work than just about anyone else they are almost always the last choice when hiring.
A $15/hr minimum wage in Davis will mean, less small business, less jobs and more single parents out of work and more money for single high school kids and grad students that work part time.
“A $15/hr minimum wage in Davis will mean, less small business, less jobs and more single parents out of work and more money for single high school kids and grad students that work part time.”
can someone live in davis on $10 an hour? no. so, what you are saying is that unless we exploit lower end workers, we won’t be able to live as well.
Who said that minimum wage was supposed to be a living wage for a household? If you are making minimum wage, you better be…
1. A student
2. A young person starting his/her career
3. Part of a family that includes other breadwinners
If you are none of these things and you are making minimum wage, then you have other problems that $15 per hour is not going to fix.
It is really just another tax on business.
And business owners will respond by rejecting the lower-skilled employees that otherwise would have been hired.
Others will close.
Others will never open.
In the end the change just destroys jobs and destroys opportunity.
People don’t seem to understand that the problem with low wages is an issue of:
1. Labor-jobs supply and demand
2. Worker skills
If there is a greater supply of jobs than labor, the rate of pay will increase.
If the worker had greater job skills, the rate of pay will increase.
Frankly,
Your analysis of the situation is correct. Raising the minimum wage in Davis would result in some businesses cutting back on employees. Other potential small businessmen will decide not to open in Davis. Some businesses that can, will relocate to Woodland, Dixon, or West Sacramento.
A raise in the minimum wage will hurt to lowest skilled people in our society. Those who can’t find jobs because they are priced out of the legitimate economy will have to find other ways to survive. Some will take up panhandling; some will take up burglary, robbery, or prostitution. Those that can qualify will get welfare and food stamps. Some will just leave Davis because of the lack of opportunity here.
Of course they can, and many do. Here’s a calculator that shows what a self-sustaining income is in Yolo County for various demographics: http://www.insightcced.org/index.php/insight-communities/cfess/calculator
1 adult, no children: SSI = $11.59/hour
2 adults share household, no children: SSI = $9.21/hour.
The problem is when you add a child to it.
1 adult, one child: SSI = $23.93/hour. The main factor is the cost of child care.
Social liberals who want to help people rise out of poverty should support greater availability of child care and family planning services, supported by all taxpayers, rather than some arbitrary and ineffective increase of wages at the expense of just one small segment of our society (small business owners).
Davis Progressive wrote:
> can someone live in davis on $10 an hour? no
The average home price in Atherton, CA on the Peninsula is over $3 MILLION (about 6x the average home in Davis). Should the Atherton minimum wage be $90 (6x the proposed Davis minimum wage).
Back when I made minimum wage I didn’t live in Davis. I paid $125.month for my own room in a crappy apartment with two other guys and bars on the windows in a crappy little town.
so you’re view is ship people in to do you menial work and then make sure they go back to west sac or dixon at night?
Again: there are plenty of people making less than $15 an hour who live and work in Davis.
DP wrote:
> so you’re view is ship people in to do you menial
> work and then make sure they go back to west
> sac or dixon at night?
As Don points out plenty of people making less than $15/hour live in Davis.
If Dixon and West Sac is not “good enough” should every job pay enough for people to live in Lake Alhambra or North Davis Farms or would a dumpy East Davis home be OK because it is in “Davis”?